(258) Proposal to Substitute the Term "Phylum" for "Division" in Art. 3.1 and Elsewhere in
the Code
Author(s): J. H. Thomas and P. H. Raven
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Taxon, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1986), pp. 842-843
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1221673 .
Accessed: 24/07/2012 14:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Taxon.
http://www.jstor.org
ticularly the types, is of extreme importance for all taxonomic work and, consequently, the conditions
for their preservation should be governed by the Rules rather than Recommendations.
Proposed by: O. Constantinescu, University of Uppsala, The Herbarium, P.O. Box 541, 751 21
Uppsala, Sweden.
(258) Proposal to substitute the term "Phylum" for "Division" in Art. 3.1 and elsewhere in the Code.
Proposals to effect this change were submitted to the Nomenclature Sessions of the Leningrad
International Botanical Congress in 1975 (Taxon 23: 831-832. 1974) and at the Sydney International
Botanical Congress in 1981 (Taxon 27: 121-122. 1978). These proposals, made by a group of internationally eminent biologists, represented an effort to bring the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature into conformity with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, by replacing the term "division" by the term "phylum"
throughout the ICBN.
The proposals failed to pass in each case, although the vote in 1981 was only 15 votes (of 405)
short of the 60% required for passage (see Englera 2: 17. 1982). At Leningrad there appeared to be
confusion in the minds of a number of the delegates. For example, one delegate told one of us (JHT)
that he did not vote for the proposal because it would have meant that he could no longer use such
names as Bryophyta, Pteridophyta, and Spermatophyta!
The objections to the passage of this proposal at the Sydney Congress have been summarized by
W. Greuter and E. G. Voss (Englera 2: 16-17, 116-117. 1982). Some of the objections on the part of
delegates bordered on the fatuous. The only potentially serious objection raised was that certain
botanists in the past had used both categories in the same classification, phylum being at a higher
hierarchical rank than division. As Paul Silva pointed out, Richard Wettstein in the four editions of
his Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik (1st ed., Leipzig & Wien, 1901; 2nd ed., 1911; 3rd ed.,
1924; 4th ed., 1935) had a category Stamm (phylum), subdivided into Abteilungen (divisions). Fosberg
noted that several algologists have also utilized both categories, but in these cases, "phylum" referred
to a category between division (or subdivision) and class; Demoulin noted that Feldmann (Rev.
Algologique 10: 1-339. 1938) used "phylum" for a category of higher rank than "enbranchement"
(division) in algae.
The desirability of having the names of the principal taxonomic categories, or as the zoologists call
them, the "obligatory categories" (see Ehrlich, P. R. and D. D. Murphy, Syst. Zool. 32: 451-453.
1983), the same in both botanical and zoological nomenclature has been discussed in the previous
proposals, and there seems to be substantive agreement that this is a worthy goal.
Indeed, a number of botanical authors have used "phylum" in place of "division," including Charles
E. Bessey in A Synopsis of Plant Phyla (Univ. Studies, Univ. Nebraska 7: 275-373. 1907), Lynn
Margulis in Five Kingdoms (Freeman, 1981), and George Papenfuss (see Englera 2: 16. 1982). In
Biology of Plants by Peter Raven and Helena Curtis (Worth, 1971), "phylum" was used in lieu of
"division," although three subsequent editions reverted to "division," in accordance with the present
Code.
If one looks at the various botanical codes starting with the Code adopted by the International
Botanical Congress in Paris in 1867, there is no mention of "phylum." Article 8 (p. 15) reads as
follows:
ART. 8. Jedes Pflanzenindividuum geh6rt zu einer Art (species), jede Art zu einer Gattung (genus),
jede Gattung zu einer Familie (ordo, familia), jede Familie zu einer Cohorte (cohors), jede Cohorte
zu einer Classe (classis).
Article 10 (p. 16) shows the expanded hierarchical classification: "Regnum vegetabile. Divisio. Subdivisio. Classis ..." without mention of "phylum."
The International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature adopted at Vienna in 1905, list Article 10 as
follows (p. 36):
Art. 10. Every individual plant belongs to a species (species), every species to a genus (genus),
every genus to a family (familia), every family to an order (ordo), every order to a class (classis),
every class to a division (divisio).
842
TAXON VOLUME35
By this time, incidentally,the confusion betweenorderand family had been resolved.
The InternationalRules of BotanicalNomenclaturepublishedin Jena in 1935 state the same, as
do the AmericanCode of Botanical Nomenclature(Bull. TorreyBot. Club 34: 167-178. 1907) and
the AmericanSociety of Plant TaxonomistsUnofficialSpecial Edition of the InternationalRules of
BotanicalNomenclature(Brittonia6: 1-120. 1947). This is true of all the post-WorldWar II codes:
Stockholm,Paris, Montreal,Edinburgh,Seattle,Leningrad,and Sydney.
The concept of principalhierarchicalcategories,therefore,goes back to our first Code from the
ParisCongressof 1867, and thathierarchyneverincludedany categorybetweendivision and kingdom,
or any (except subdivision)between division and class. Authors who failed to follow the Code by
usingboth "phylum"and "division"hardlyneed to be followedtoday,and theiruse of both categories
can be rejected.
(258) Proposalto changethe name of the hierarchicalcategoryof division (divisio)to phylum(phylum)
in Art. 3.1 and elsewherein the Code and to make this usage retroactiveto 1753.
The followingsentenceis to be addedat an appropriateplacein the Code:"Namesof taxapublished
in the rankof division are to be automaticallytreatedas havingbeen simultaneouslypublishedin the
rankof phylum."
This is contraryto Proposal59 (Taxon34: 540. 1985)whichrecommendsthat "Therankof phylum
should not be used." Proposal59 should be rejected.
Proposedby: J. H. Thomas, Departmentof Biological Sciences,StanfordUniversity, Stanford,CA
94305, U.S.A. and P. H. Raven, Missouri BotanicalGarden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166,
U.S.A.
(259)-(262) Proposalson homonymsand parahomonyms.
Summary
In the logicallyconvoluted languageof Art. 64 of ICBN a homonym (which is a botanicalname
with multipletypifications)is writtenabout as two or more differentnames,one "legitimate"and the
rest "illegitimate".A proposal referredto the Special Committee on Orthographyby the Sydney
Congressto eliminate the languageof legitimacy/illegitimacyfrom a straightforwardmatter of the
correctand incorrectuse of a name is revised and presentedagain, since the Special Committeehas
neglectedto deal with it. A furtherproposalis made to divorce the materialon homonymy from the
materialon parahomonyms(confusinglysimilarnames)and to stop the confusingpracticeof "treating
as homonyms(!)"quite distinctvalidly publishedand heterotypicnameswhich simplyhappento have
a similar orthography.Such names should both be retainedunless there are pragmaticgrounds for
rejectingone of them, and when this is necessaryexisting strategiesfor nomenclaturalconservation
are perfectlyadequate.
IllegitimacyRevisited
In my review of the conceptof nomenclaturalillegitimacy(Parkinson,1984, p. 482) I criticisedthe
text of Art. 64 as presentedin the LeningradCode and the Sydney Code and the reasonswhich led
me to proposeto revise it beforethe SydneyCongressin 1981. The proposalI made to that Congress
(Prop. 197) was referredby the NomenclatureSession to the SpecialCommitteeon Orthography,set
up by the Congress,and I did not at that time reproposeit because the Special Committee was
supposedlyconsideringit. The Committee (of which I have been a member)has in fact never dealt
with the issue of eliminationof the unnecessarysemanticsof legitimacy/illegitimacyfrom the homonymyquestionand will not be makingany recommendationon Prop. 197, althoughit has considered
the issues aroundparahomonymyat some lengthand will makesome recommendationson that issue.
To ensure that the Berlin Congresshas proposalsto complete the purge of legitimacy/illegitimacy,
which I have previouslyarguedis most desirable,I here reproposerevisionsto Art. 64 to complement
the proposalson Arts. 18, 63, 65, 66, 67 and 68 alreadymade.
Article64.1 (Homonymy)
(259) Proposalto replaceArt. 64.1 and its Examples 1-4 with the followingtext and revise Art. 64.4
and its Example 1 replacingthem with new 64.2:
NOVEMBER1986
843